Herbert W. Armstrong was a God-send to restore long lost truths; stood against traditional Christianity's error and taught the plain truth of the Bible; restored our Hebrew roots; warned world leaders about a German-dominated European Union and offered the hope and comfort of Christ's return to save us from its nuclear holocaust; he brought God's Church back on track, and he died, full of faith and wisdom, leaving a lasting impression on those who continue the quest for God's Kingdom.

Friday, December 29, 2006

"Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin?" Chapter Nine: The Kempler Film

"Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin?": The Root & Branch Information Services is serializing the book Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin?, by Mr. Barry Chamish, with permission of the author, to commemorate the eleventh anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (November 4, 1995 -- November 4, 2006).

The Bible Says:

"How is the faithful city [Jerusalem] become a harlot. She that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers. Your silver is become dross, your wine is mixed with water. Your princes are rebellious and companions of thieves; every one loves bribes, and follows after rewards; they judge not the fatherless, neither does the cause of the widow come to them.

Therefore, says the Lord, the Lord of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel: Ah, I will ease Me of My adversaries, and avenge Me of My enemies; and I will turn My hand upon you, and purge away your dross as with lye, and will take away all your allow; and I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counsellors as at the beginning; afterward you [Jerusalem] shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city. Zion shall be redeemed with justice, and they who return of her with righteousness.

But the destruction of the transgressors and the sinners shall be together, and they who forsake the Lord shall be consumed. For they shall be ashamed of the terebinths which you have desired, and you shall be confounded for the garden that you have chosen. For you shall be as a terebinth whose leaf fades, and as a garden that has no water. And the strong shall be as tow, and his work as a spark, and they shall both burn together, and none shall quench them".

Almost two months after the Rabin assassination, Israelis were shocked to read in their newspapers that an amateur film of the event would be shown on Channel Two news. The film maker was announced as a Polish tourist with a long, unpronounceable name. However, this story changed the day of the broadcast. The film maker was, in fact, an Israeli named Roni Kempler.

There were obvious questions asked by the public. Why had he [Kempler] waited a month to show the film when he would have been a few million dollars richer had he sold it to the world networks the day following the assassination? In his sole television appearance the night his film was broadcast, Kempler explained he was not interested in making money. What else could he say?

It was quickly discovered that Kempler was no ordinary person. He worked for the State Comptroller's Office and was a bodyguard in the army reserves.

It is an extremely rare occurrence when the Israeli press publishes an opinion that expresses doubt about the veracity of the Shamgar Commission, which investigated the assassination on behalf of the government. Yet in the aftermath of a most revealing expose of the testimony of Shabak (G.S.S./General Security Services) agents and police officers present near the murder site published by Ma'ariv on September 27, 1996, two letters were published in response.

One was from Labor Knesset Member Ofir Pines, who admitted he, too, heard numerous security agents shout that the shots which supposedly felled Rabin were blanks. He added rather weakly that in retrospect, perhaps he heard the shouts because he wanted to believe that the bullets were not real.

A second letter was from Hannah Chen of Jerusalem. She succinctly summarized some of the most blatant suspicions about Roni Kempler. The letter read:

"Allow me to add my doubts about the strange facts surrounding the Rabin assassination. First, it was said that the video film maker who captured the murder did not own his own camera, rather borrowed one. It is odd that an amateur film maker did not own a camera and, if he borrowed one, then from whom? Why were we not told what kind of a camera was used? Secondly, no one initially knew that he made the film, that a film of the assassination existed. Does that mean none of the security agents on the scene spotted him filming from a rooftop? And how did the video get to the media? Should not the Shabak have confiscated the film from its owner if this was the only documentary evidence describing the crime? And why did not the film maker voluntarily turn over the film to the police? It is completely uncertain if the film is authentic. In my opinion, it was tampered with. Perhaps people were removed or bullet wounds added. It appears to me that we were all fooled. The film maker worked for the Shabak and everything to do with the film and the timing of its release were fake".

Ms. Chen expressed the view of many. Nonetheless, the film, as edited as it obviously was during its two months of non-acknowledgement, is as valuable to solving the Rabin assassination as the Zapruder film in putting to rest the lone-gunman lie foisted on the American public in the wake of the J.F.K. murder.

One event in particular that was captured on the film is becoming the center of doubt about the veracity of the Shamgar Commission. Before Rabin enters his vehicle, the opposite door closes from inside. To almost everyone who watches that door close, it is certain that someone, perhaps the murderer, was waiting in the Cadillac for Rabin. This is in direct contradiction to the official conclusion that Rabin entered an empty car. But there is more on the Kempler film that contradicts the official findings -- much more.

As the fifteen-minute film begins, Yigal Amir looks in the distance; and, as the television commentator noted, "Seems to be signaling someone". It is not the first time that the possibility of an accomplice was noted. At the Shamgar Commission, police officers Boaz Eran and Mori Sergei both testified that Amir spoke with a bearded man in a dark tee-shirt, whom he appeared to know, about 30 minutes before the shooting.

As the film progresses, the viewer realizes that Shabak (G.S.S./General Security Services) testimony before Shamgar was very incorrect. One of the primary excuses given for not identifying Amir in the sterile area was because of the "crowded" situation. To prove the point, the testimony of police officers saying that "another well-known demonstrator, who works for the city, rushed at Rabin and shook his hand", is cited. Amir, then, was not the only anti-Rabin individual in the sterile zone. However, Amir is not filmed in a crowd. He stands for long minutes meters away from anyone else. No one could have missed him had they wanted to see him.

Then, two security officers strike up a conversation with Amir. He was noticed and apparently had something to say to the very people who should have identified and apprehended him.

A few seconds later, Shimon Peres comes down the steps and walks towards the crowd at the barrier. He accepts their good wishes and walks to a spot about a meter and a half opposite the hood or Rabin's car. He is accompanied by four bodyguards, one of whom clearly points to Yigal Amir sitting three meters away opposite them. Peres stops, looks inside the car and begins a conversation with the bodyguards. All now take a good look at the Rabin limousine rear door.

At this point there is a cut. Suddenly, Peres is talking to Rabin's driver, Menachem Damti. Damti was nowhere in the screen previously and was likely by his post beside the driver's seat door. The cut is significant, probably of several seconds. There was something the folks who chopped the film did not want the public to see.

After a hard night at the rally, instead of getting into his car and going home, Peres decided it was more important to examine Rabin's car and have a serious chat with his driver.

Roni Kempler was asked to explain the cut in the film under oath at Yigal Amir's trial. He [Kempler] testified that "Shimon Peres left and I filmed him as he was supposed to enter his car. But when Shimon Peres stood on the same spot for a long time, he stopped interesting me cinematically. I stopped filming and started again the moment he entered his car".

Kempler's account was wrong in every detail. If the film was not cut and he shut off the camera, he decided to turn it back on while Peres was still standing opposite Rabin's car, only now talking to Damti. Many seconds later, he started walking towards his own car. Kempler's testimony was perjured, yet Amir's lawyers, possibly not familiar enough with the film, let him off the hook.

Peres enters his car as Rabin descends the steps. The camera captures the agent at Rabin's rear clearly stopping. He abandons Rabin's back deliberately; a huge gap between him and Rabin opens, allowing Amir a clear shot at the Prime Minister. Amir draws his gun from deep inside his right pocket and the television commentator notes, "Amir is drawing his gun to shoot". Anyone, trained or not, could see that Amir was drawing a gun, and at that point he should have been pounced on. But this was not to be. Instead, he circles a student reporter named Modi Yisrael, draws his gun and shoots.

We now play the murder frame by frame. Rabin has supposedly taken a hollow-point 9mm bullet in his lung, yet he does not wince or flinch. He is not even pushed forward by the impact nor does his suit show signs of tearing. Instead, he continues walking forward and turns his head behind him in the direction of the noise.

Three doctors watched this moment with me; Drs. B. and H. asked for anonymity and Dr. Klein of Tel Aviv had no objection to being cited. I asked if Rabin's reaction was medically feasible if he was only hit in the lung or if his backbone was shattered. I was told that if the spine was hit, Rabin would have fallen on the spot. However, in the case of a lung wound, I was told that there are two types of pain reaction: One reflexive, the other delayed.

Rabin did not display the reflexive reaction, which would have most likely meant clutching the arm. Instead, he displayed a startle reaction, painlessly turning his head toward the direction of the shot. The conclusion of the doctors was that Rabin heard a shot, perhaps felt the blast of a blank and turned quickly towards the noise. This was a startle reaction, and it cannot occur simultaneously with a reflexive pain reaction.

Rabin takes three or four steps forward, and suddenly the film becomes totally hazy for just under two seconds. A technical expert told me he is convinced the film was deliberately made fuzzy by an artificial process duplicating a sudden, quick movement of the camera. To illustrate his belief, he put his finger on one point, a white reflective light on the windshield, and notes that it stays in the same position while the camera is supposedly moving. Yet the haze lifts momentarily almost two seconds later and Rabin appears, still standing but a step or two forward. He has taken at least five steps since the shooting. Then the swish returns and within the next round of haze, another shot is heard but not seen.

According to the Shamgar Commission and the judges at Yigal Amir's trial, Yoram Rubin was on top of Rabin lying on the parking lot ground when the second shot was fired. The official version is that after hearing the first shot, Rubin jumps on Rabin and pushes him to the ground. Amir approached Rabin and Rubin and, while being held by at least two other bodyguards, pumped one bullet into Rubin's arm and another into Rabin's spleen. There followed a hiatus in the shooting, during which Rubin thinks to himself, "A defect in the weapon", and then according to Rubin,

"I shouted at him several times, 'Yitzhak, can you hear me, just me and no one else, g-dammit? He (Rabin) helped me to my feet. That is, we worked together. He then jumped into the car. In retrospect, I find it amazing that a man his age could jump like that."

This author finds it amazing that a man his [Rabin's] age with bullets in his lung and spleen could jump at all.